Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum Versus Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd.

2018 (2) TMI 924 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

Refund claim - input/input services - Revenue is of the view that as the goods exported by the respondent is an exempted goods, therefore as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, they are not entitled to cenvat credit on input/input services used for manufacturing of exempted goods - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of JOLLY BOARD LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (3) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that CENVAT credit used in the manufacture of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate, For the Respondent Per : ASHOK JINDAL Revenue is in appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents were engaged in export of iron ore fine and lumps falling under Chapter 2601 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of manufacture of the goods, the respondent received certain input services on which they have availed cenvat credit and as they could not utilize the cenvat credit, filed the refund claim under Rule 5 read with Notification N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efund claims to the respondent. Aggrieved from the said orders, Revenue is before me. 3. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 4. The sole argument raised today by the learned AR is that as per Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for exempted goods, cenvat credit on input/input services was not available to the assesee. Admittedly the goods which is exported by the respondent is the exempted goods. It is further submitted that the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Himachal Prades .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the manufacturing of exempted goods which were exported by the appellant. These facts are not in dispute. The intent of the legislation is not in dispute that the taxes are not to be exported. The same issue came up before Jobelle (supra) wherein this tribunal held that the sub-rule (5) makes an exception when exempted finished goods are either cleared to a free trade zone, SEZ, 100% EOU or are cleared for export under Bond without payment of duty. If the goods are exported on payment of duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the facts were the assessee were manufacturers of finished leather and finished leather was exported. After export they claimed refund on account of CENVAT credit paid on inputs, which were purchased for finishing the export goods. Refund was sought to be denied under provisions of Rules 5 and 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Thereafter the Honble High Court examined the issue and held as under : 16. The Scheme of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, as also 2004, reference to the relevant provisions o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of excisable goods, which are cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 17. Sub rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002 was applicable only in case of exempted goods. That meant that the exception was not applicable in case of dutiable goods. It appears that this led to anomalous situations. For example, if the goods were dutiable and were exported, credit for CENVAT could not be claimed in respect of input of those goods, at least under the afore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dia, while dealing with a similar situation and interpreting the provisions of Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, has held that expression excisable goods is wider than the expression exempted goods , as it includes both dutiable as also exempted goods. 20. In view of the above discussion, we hold that an assessee, manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty, is eligible to avail CENVAT credit paid on the inputs under the exception clause to rule 6( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version